Lucky or Unlucky?

Viewed at the macro-level this season was a success. They brought in a couple free agents, debuted some rookies, and ended up winning 10 games more than last year. Only Cincinnati and San Diego showed more improvement. Where did the improvement come from? A team's talent level serves as a nice base, but usually whether you succeed or fail in your goals for a year depends on whether you got lucky or unlucky with a few players. I'm not talking about things like 1-run games and expected wins and losses, though those do matter*. I'm talking about the total collapses or come out of nowhere players that can change the whole season. The unforseeable. Were the Nats more lucky or unlucky? And what's that possibly mean for next season?

*If you must know - based on the Nats runs scored and runs allowed the Nats were "expected" to win 72 games. Their adjusted standings (seen here at Baseball Prospectus), which tries to adjust even further for the level of competition faced and take out things like the randomness of clutch hitting, pegs the Nats at around 74 wins. The long and short of it? Play the season a bunch of times and this team wins a couple more games. For what that's worth.

EXPECTED / FORSEEABLE
Pudge was terrible. Dunn and Zimmerman were great. Kennedy did not have another good season in him. Guzman was not good either. Desmond was passable. Willingham was good and didn't play a full season. No real breakthroughs from young players, batters or pitchers, who weren't likely to breakthrough anyway.

LUCKY
Livan Hernandez - Livan was brought in as an emergency staff filler after Detwiler went down in the pre-season. His job was to give the Nats close to 200 innings, hopefully keeping the ERA under 5.00. Chances weren't great that would happen, since he hadn't been able to do that since 2007. Livan went out and gave the Nats his best year since 2004, 211 innings of 3.66 ERA pitching. A lot of this success was due the crazy lucky start he had, but beyond that he still pitched better than expected putting up a 4.35 ERA from June on. He wasn't a Top 10 pitcher in the NL but Top 20 could be argued and for a last minute addition that anyone could have had on their team that's a huge boost. If the Nats hadn't have had Livan, let's just not think about it.

The Bullpen - It's not unusual for a relief pitcher to vary quite a bit from year to year. You don't get bad to awesome, but you will get bad to ok, and ok to awesome. Putting together a good bullpen can be about finding who is good this season. The Nats had no problems with that. The guys that were good last year (Clippard, Walker, Batista) were good this year. The players they wanted to bounce back (Capps, Peralta) bounced back in a big way. They got a suprisingly good year from Slaten. A suprisingly awesome one for Burnett. All in all the bullpen was damn good this year, 4th in the NL with a 3.39 ERA. Imagine how good it could have been if Rizzo didn't love Bruney so much?

Mike Morse - There had always been a feeling that Mike Morse could hit if given the chance. The Nats gave him a chance. He hit. A .289 / .352 / .519 line in total .295 / .374 / .625 vs lefties. At the very least the Nats have found their righty bat off the bench for a couple of years. Maybe he'll be something more though - a platoon outfielder? A starter in case of injury? The Nats have found a useful player and that's always a nice surprise.


UNLUCKY
Strasburg's injury - Forget what it did to kill interest in the Nats. Strasburg was the best starter on the Nats the moment he stepped on the field. Probably one of the Top 10 starters in the NL. Losing that type of player for a month and a half matters.

Starter injuries in general - Lannan was supposed to be ok and give the Nats innings. Marquis was supposed to be ok and give the Nats innings. Instead the Nats got Marquis first injury riddled season since 2003, Lannan's first one ever and both pitchers' worst seasons. Both cam back from injury with good results (Lannan - 3.42 ERA since return, Marquis 4.29) but it wasn't enough to make up for the missed time and awful starts.

Nyjer Morgan crashes - Before the season I warned that Morgan was the Nats "offensive keyhole", meaning he was someone who we had felt pretty sure about but really didn't know enough to be that sure. Therefore, he had the potential to greatly disappoint. I'd say I told you so but my "greatly disappoint" was .275 /.340 / .350. Nyjer's 2010? .253 / .319 / .314. Even trying to come up with a worst case scenario I way overestimated his contribution. This was an epic collapse to a player that was supposed to be a key to the offense.

All those errors - the Nats defense was supposed to be better this season. It wasn't. Call it youth, call it surprise, call it bad roster management, whatever the reason the Nats defense was a problem all year.



What does this mean for next year? Offensively not much. The offense had holes in it by plan. Pudge stinks, Guzman/Kennedy stinks, the Nats back-up OFs stink, the rookies aren't impact players. Even if Morgan is good, he's not making this bad offense good. 2011 is still up in the air right now. If they make good FA signings that will help but at least 3 spots (C,SS,2B) will be the domain of young players who could make or break the offense.

Pitching wise though we may expect to see a nice little bump next year. Livan's resurgance was great, and it could help overcome either Marquis' problems or Lannan's problems but not both. Not to mention Strasburg's injury. Even if Livan regresses as one would expect, Marquis and Lannan simply returning to form would give the Nats a better staff. If either Zimmerman or Detwiler (or Maya... or Wang?) could be just as boringly good the Nats starters should be significantly better. The bullpen might drop a bit, since they did get lucky there, but the bullpen was built to be good. It was lucky they were THAT good, but not good in general.

All in all - send the same team out next year and the Nats should win a few more games, maybe even mid 70s would be reasonable. Of course a few more games isn't enough to recapture interest and with Dunn possibly leaving it won't be the same team.

World War Lannan 2010 : The Aftermath

With Detwiler's start on Wednesday, John Lannan's season ended. (essentially the Nats went to a 6-man rotation and there were only 5 games left). With John's last pitch likely being thrown, it's time to take a look at the season and see what we can see see see.

The question about Lannan had always been, "how can he keep this up". He walked too many and struck out too few to be as successful as he was. At least that's what the stats said. Stats guys threw up their hands and said "luck" and waited for the other shoe to drop... for two whole seasons. Early 2010 though seemed to validate their opinion. Lannan pitched terribly. Problem is Lannan was pitching far worse than ever. The conditions of the experiment had changed so the conclusion could not be reached. Conversely, when Lannan came back and pitched well, he was pitching far better than ever. We may never know how long "2007-2009" Lannan could go on being successful, because that pitcher may be gone forever.

But looking deeper into Lannan's stats we see something even more interesting about post All-Star Lannan.

Here are Lannan's Lefty Right Splits for his career

Righty
2007: .273 / .350 /.382
2008: .250 / .331 /.380
2009: .259 / .319 / .392

Lefty
2007: .273 / .429 / .409
2008: .259 / .317 / .460
2009: .290 / .360 / .513

As we've said before, a big part of Lannan's success had been his amazing ability to keep righties from slugging high. On the other hand a big reason he wasn't more successful was that lefties were able to crush him. This is unusual for a LH starter. Did things change in 2010?

Righty 2010: .307 / .366 / .451
Lefty 2010: .287 / .333 / .413

They did, but it doesn't look much for the better. Lefties still hit Lannan well (though for less power), while now righties can hit him too. These numbers really don't show any good pitching. We'll have to split out those numbers to see why he succeeded after coming back.

Righty 2010 Pre All-Star: .313 / .386 / .449
Righty 2010 Post All-Star: .299 / .357 / .455

Lefty 2010 Pre All-Star: .373 / .415 / .507
Lefty 2010 Post All-Star: .200 / .250 / .320

The numbers for righties remained pretty stable, but the numbers for lefties dropped like a rock. If this isn't just a half-season fluke it would mean Lannan has completely changed his recipe for success. He's gone from keeping righties from hitting the ball hard, to dominating lefties. He's gone from being the odd duck, to winning with more traditional southpaw skills.

Is this a real change? It'll take time to see of course, but if it is it could actually help the Nationals a great deal. This team has no lefties it can rely on. Detwiler is arguably the best one after John and who knows if he'll ever put it together. If John can manage lefties now the Nats can line him up against a lefty heavy team and hope to keep them contained.

Side Note - If you want to say the Phillies killed him on Monday - that's only kind of true. 4 runs in 5 2/3rds isn't good, but it was more a product of losing control (walk and HBP in that last inning), bad luck (Ibanez's hit was a swinging bunt), and bullpen failure (Stammen immediately giving up a double to Ruiz). It wasn't that the lefties were hitting him. (2-8 in total - with the swinging bunt being one. 3 Ks)

What if the Nats do nothing?

Just a few months removed from Strasburg mania and Nats' brief flirtation with trading for Oswalt, it's hard to contemplate the worst-case (for 2011) scenario. But with Kasten out the door at year's end, potentially because the Lerners won't commit to the same future , there has to be a serious questions raised about the new direction the Nats could conceivably take.

What if the Nats don't sign Dunn? It's feeling more and more likely that Adam is out the door, and while that would be a shame it wouldn't necessarily kill the team. The hope is the money not spent on Dunn would go elsewhere, possibly toward a run at Carl Crawford. (Forget for the moment that about a quarter of the league might be gunning for the guy, and the Nats are far from the most appealing candidate). But what if they don't even try to sign Crawford? What if they don't try to sign anyone interesting?

It's not like it couldn't happen. The Nats have a lot of young players ready to be tested and veterans still under contract. Ramos/Pudge/Flores, Espinosa, Desmond, Zimmerman of course, Willingham, Morgan (all indications are that he'll at least go into next year as the favorite to start in center), Livan, Marquis, Lannan, Zimermann, Detwiler, Burnett/Clippard/Storen/Peralta etc. While the overall talent here might be lacking, the end result is that there are not a lot of holes in the Nats lineup. A quick look would tell a fan that First Base, LF or RF, and a trusted starter are needed. They should also get a decent MI backup. Other than that, while there are definitely places that could improve, there are none that NEED a new player.

Can the Nats get away with not filling these holes though? How would they justify it? Well not getting a good back-up infielder is easy enough to justify. It's a back-up infielder. Yes, injuries can happen and relying on a rookie and a 2nd year player who hasn't quite solidified his role is risky, but your average back-up MI is garbage anyway. Who's going to protest if they go with Alberto Gonzalez?

As for starting pitcher, you can see the Nats argument for not spending money there as well. Livan, Marquis, and Lannan should eat innings next year. They want Zimmermann and Detwiler to get shots. Maya needs a longer look. Strasburg needs a place to slip in. You could argue that another FA pitcher would only muddy the situation. Of course a stud pitcher would and should be grabbed, but here really IS no need to put another "ok" pitcher in with this group.

Outfield? I hate to say this, but Nats fans might have caught a break with the collapse of Bernadina over the past month. Before that it was pretty clear they were leaning toward an outfield with Bernadina. That could still be the case but justifying that is much tougher now. This is especially true if they want to go with Morgan again. The OF must generate offense and you can't count on a Nyjer/Roger combination to do that. They could turn to Mike Morse in the third outfield slot, but I don't get the feeling that the Nats management is behind that idea. The Nats could go into 2010 with no new OFs (or with a Mench like signing) but this one would be tough to swallow.

First base is the kicker. The Nats could go with Morse, but if they are questioning him in the outfield its likely they don't see him as an everyday player. They could go internally, but Marrero is far from a lock to hold down the spot. You can hope for it, but there is no way you can responsibly expect it. Given the offensive importance of first base a no-signing here would be an immediate white flag on the 2010 season.

The Nats could do nothing. It's always possible. Doing nothing though, would be a sign of a team giving up on 2011, surrendering already to another 100 loss season. First base has to be filled with something reliable and that outfield spot has the potential of being a huge hole and should be addressed. Other moves would help, but these are the ones that if they don't get done you can seriously question what is going on with the franchise.

It's the best day of the week, Nats fans!

Lannan Day!

John is up against maybe, just maybe, a Phillies team coming back to Earth. Since August 26th through Friday Philadelphia had gone a mind-bending 23-4, going from 70-57 to 93-61. That's a month of play for the history books. Almost as impressive is the 45-15 record they put up since being a mere 2 games over .500 at the end of July. Still, the Mets just beat them 2 games in a row over the weekend and they clinched a playoff spot, so maybe, just maybe, they are winding down. Of course this is THE bad matchup for Lannan. He's the rare southpaw who does well against righties, and the Phillies are lefty-loaded. If he can do well against the Phillies that bodes very well... for next year of course.

Other notes :

The fact Livan didn't get the W last night ensures that Tyler Clippard will lead the Nats in wins this year. He also has a shot at being the team leader in strikeouts* Sarcastic congratulations to Tyler! *(Strasburg - who pitched about a third of a season, will finish 3rd for the Nats)

Assuming Adam Dunn gets another homer, he'll be only the 3rd player ever to have 7 consecutive seasons with 38 or more homers. Rafael Palmiero and Babe Ruth are the other two. Of course 38 is a totally arbitrary number, so don't take it to mean that he's one of the best 3 home run hitters of all time or anything. (lower the limit to 35 and Sosa has 10 in a row, 33 and Bonds has like 13) The fact illustrates though, that Adam Dunn might be the best slugger of the post-steroid era not named Pujols; (random testing began in 2004, the first year of Dunn's streak) and Adam has had amazing durability (several streaks of high home-runs were broken by missing games)

Sayonara Scott Olsen. (and I say that because I'm pretty sure he's a Japanese League level talent)

In the same article we read that Riggleman wants a leadoff hitter. That's nice. What does Rizzo want? What about the soon to be all-powerful Lerners?

A weak, non-commital opinion on Stan's leaving

The day has come. Stan "The Plan" Kasten has left the building and the Nats fans are left to wonder why. You'd be a fool to just take Kasten at his word, master of the half-truth that he is. I feel fairly certain it wasn't animosity, or even a clash of personalities. We never got a hint of anger. A clash of philosophies though? That's what Boswell suggests and I don't see any reason to not believe him. He paints it as a fight between CHEEEEEEEEEEP and a fiscally responsible game plan. If this is the case then leaving now makes sense, as the Nats are going to start entering a period where an increased payroll will be necessary to make the next step. Of course if this is the case, how does one reconcile it with the run at Teixeira?

Right now, it doesn't really matter why he left. What matters is what happens next, because that will define Stan's legacy and clear up the picture for Nats fans on why, 4 years after the Lerners and Kasten came on board, the team is has no more combined talent on its major league roster than it did when they came in, and why the minor league system has risen only to middle of the road. How much blame for that can be laid at Kasten's feet?

Is Kasten a failure? I don't know. I want to see the team run by someone else under the Lerners. Maybe he was working with one hand tied behind his back. Does his leaving hurt the team? I don't know. Maybe the next guy in will have better methods of making this team resonate with the local fanbase. For all Stan did in Atlanta - cultivating long-term fan interest was not one of them. I think they are both right and that's scary. The Nats are bad despite Stan being competant at what he does and seemingly putting alot of effort into it. In on the field terms, it's a bad team losing a good player.

OK I didn't see this coming

Kasten is gone (well, going).

Forced out? Rat escaping the ship? Hmmm. Let me stew on this for a while.

The rebirth of Lannan

Don't you just love that guy? He threw another good game last night, a low K game (3 over 7) but another low BB game (1) and only 2 XBH. Pitching is complex, but understanding it is easy. Strikeouts are very good. Walks and homers are very bad. If you can control 2 of the three you should be successful.

Since he came back on the first of August, John has easily been the Nats best starter. It's not even close. Looking at the stats that's both good to see (for Lannan) and completely disheartening (for everyone else) In August there was at least a resepectable competition. John had a 3.25 ERA, but Zimmermann, Livan, and Marquis all had ERAs of 4.50 or lower. That's not fantastic, but considering it's only a month we're looking at - really it's only the difference between one off start for Lannan and one decent start for one of these other guys. In September though it's much much worse. Lannan leads with a 3.04 ERA. The next best starter this month has been Livan with a 5.70 ERA. That's right. The Nats #2 starter in September is carrying an ERA of almost 6.00. The rest follow, Maya (6.32), Marquis (6.57), Zimmermann (9.00), Olsen (11.74). Granted there are still a couple starts left in here and much like August it would only take one good one to make a big dent in the ERA, but still, this is pathetic right?

If it weren't for Mr. Brow (Call Mr. Brow, cause that's his name. That name again is Mr. Brow) the Nats would be in complete free fall.

you know...

While the #1 pick is out of reach and #2 is likely the same, the Nats do have a puncher's chance (that puncher being Glass Joe) of getting the #3 pick in next years draft.

Milestones or Millstones

Tonight the Nats could draw under 10K for the game. Before today they had never gone below 11,000 (officially of course). Maybe Stan can call up some Philly fans to see if they want to check out J A Happ?

Tonight the Nats could also fall below the Cleveland Indians in the standings. (Ok it could have happened the last few nights too) Not really indicative of anything but I do remember earlier in the year some taking great glee in the fact that Manny was doing worse in Cleveland than the Nats were doing. I guess they felt it validated their dislike of Acta in some way.

Lannan pitches - you know how I said he needed three shutouts to get his ERA under 4.00? Well, if he's going to get one this Astros team is probably the best bet. Go John, Go!

Stop being unlucky!

It's bad enough that the Nats are bad, but do they have to be unlucky, too? They've lost their last 4 one-run games and more "impressively" 10 of their last 11. That kind of luck turns a team looking at getting a few games past 70 wins to a team hoping to break 65.

As for yesterday's game, I wasn't following it and when I first glanced at the last inning I was about to harangue Riggleman for trying to give Storen experience in a game with playoff implications. Then I looked at the entire game and realized there wasn't really any choice in the matter. He'd used his best three relievers and a lefty specialist already. The starting pitching failures by Marquis and Zimmerman wiped out the bullpen depth. Storen had been hit hard, but the hard hit balls were from lefty batters. Really Storen was the only choice. It's a shame for the Braves that the Nats starters sucked so bad in the previous two games that he couldn't quickly yank Storen when it seems like he obviously didn't have it, but them's the breaks when you are relying on the Nats.

Ladson and Lannan

Just a few quick bites on a lazy Friday.

Bill Ladson put out a twitter q to his followers on whether Dunn should be re-signed or not. In it we find another reason why Dunn should probably be locked up for a few more years. Out of 29 responses, 26 were positive. Unscientific? Certainly. From what I've heard/felt a good indication of Nats' fans desires? Yes.

If this were a cut and dried situation, if bringing back Adam was a horrible idea, the management should feel free to ignore the fans. Fans are sentimental fools. However, there is no obvious decision here, and in that case you really should weigh in things like "how will the fans feel". The Nats don't have to do whatever it takes to bring back Dunn, but if they don't want to lose even more of their dwindling fanbase they need to make sure they make a fair offer to Adam and that the public knows about it one way or the other. If they throw out 3 years 33 million to Adam and he rejects it because he wants 4 for 60, the fans will (probably) see that the management made an honest effort to keep Adam here and HE chose to leave.


Lannan is a favorite around here because of the fact that his raw stats were never in line with his performance. The sum of his pitching was always much greater than the parts and it drove stats geeks wild. Earlier this year, when Lannan collapsed, there was a bit of glee from their end. However, it was clear to those of us that followed John that he wasn't the same pitcher. He was worse. He had no room for error. He erred (perhaps due to injury). The first few months were the painful result.

Now Lannan is on a roll with a 3.07 ERA since coming back in August. It would be nice to say "See! We told you Lannan could pitch like he does and still be successful!" Except that would be a lie. Just as Lannan pitched much worse than "usual" before going out, he's pitched much better after. See for yourselves.

Career before '10
BB/9 : 3.3
K/9 : 4.6

Before
BB/9 : 4.2
K/9: 2.9

After
BB/9: 1.9
K/9: 6.6

The K's are WAY up. He's a different, and better, pitcher than the one that managed success his first three years.

Side note: Lannan can't hit the 200 IP mark, but can he get his ERA under 4.00? No. Well yes, but it would be remarkable. It would take 3 shutouts in his 3 last starts to make it happen.

Adjusting or not.

As June ended things looked bleak for Ian Desmond. He had been struggling at the plate the first couple of months, posting a .246 / .307 / .406 line in April and a .272 / .296 / .402 line in May. June was a crucial month for him to show that he was adjusting. Instead of taking a step foward, though, Ian took a big one back. .222 / .259 /. 309. Maybe if Desmond was sparkling in the field that would have bought him another month but he had been prone to make the dumb error. Without the strong defense, that's a line that screams "Send me back to AAA coach, I'm not ready!" Some of us said exactly that, others (like me) weren't too different in their thinking. Most fell in line with the thinking that the All-Star break would be a good time to make a change. Ian had one last chance to get it right this time (with the majority of the fanbase. With the team, who knows? But Rizzo was making hints of getting tired of seeing the lousy play and Desmond was playing the lousiest)

Desmond went out and from Jun 26th to the All-Star break he hit .294 / 351 / .529. Certainly good enough to hold off on that bus ride to Syracuse for a little while. And a little while looked to be all it would be as he struggled immediately after the break though (.172 / .194 / .207 in the first 9 games). Then a funny thing happened, Desmond started hitting and never stopped. Since July 27th (45 games ago) Desmond has hit .344 / .374 / .494. He's arguably been the Nats best hitter since the end of July (Zimmerman has probably been better - he's hit .322 / .399 / .500 in the same time frame). Has Desmond adjusted?

On one hand it's hard to argue with 45 games. On the other hand I can pull out 45 games from late May through June that will look terrible. What do the fancy stats say?

K-rate and BB-rate? August did show improvement in both but it's virtually the same over this stretch as over the first 110 games or so. Maybe a tick better. So he's not better at indentifying strikes or not swinging and missing.

BABIP? Uh oh. Even during the "bad stretch" Desmond still had a BABip above .285, probably just under .300 for the season up to late July. With the NL Average around .300, you probably figure the young Desmond to be maybe... .305? .310? So it was low but not terribly low. During the hot stretch? It's been over .380. That's a sign of luck, not skill.

GB/LD/FB % : He's seen his GB rate go way up (over 60% the last two months, was under 50% for the first part of the season). Unsurprisingly his percentage of infield hits has also jumped. Also on a good note - his infield pop up percentages are way down. He's not exactly ripping the ball - his LD% has plummeted along with his FB% - but it appears that he's changed his approach and it has paid divdends.

What's the conclusion? Well that BABIP is unsustainable, which means his batting average is unsustainable. He's not getting any more walks so his value at the top of the lineup will take a hit. However, that bump in BABIP is not all luck. Desmond has taken to hitting the ball on the ground more. Now when he makes a mistake on a swing, it's not a lazy fly ball or a pop-up but a ground ball of some type. Some of these find their way through the infield, others he can beat out. The end result is a better hitter. Not a .344 hitter but probably something better than the lines he was putting up in April and May.

It's all in the batting average...

This recent slump could very well be a sign of things to come in 2010. Not that the Nats will be terrible offensively. But when they aren't getting base hits, the Nats won't be scoring runs. Outside of Zimmerman and a healthy Willingham, the Nats won't necessarily have patience or power in this line-up.

Let's ignore Nyjer for a second (as he should be in a discussion of patience and power). Here are the minor league stats for Ramos, Bernadina and Desmond. Note that an isoOBP of .070 and an isoSLG of .155 would be about average in the majors.

Ramos isoOBP: .047 isoSLG: .146
Bernadina isoOBP: .085 isoSLG: .120
Desmond isoOBP: .067 isoSLG: .129

Right away the lack of power should grab you. This is something that can develop as the body fills out, etc. However Bernadina is probably as developed as he can be and neither Ramos or Desmond project to be big sluggers. (For contrast Dunn has a .221 isoSLG in the minors, Zimmerman a .224, Willingham a .234) I do like what I've seen from Desmond this season (a .154 isoSLG) but I don't think he'll ever be a 30 homer guy, maybe not even a 20+ homer guy.

As for patience, Bernadina has some but Desmond does not and Ramos is a hacking machine. I kind of like patience developing for a hitter like Ramos (and Bernadina). When you hit for high average in the minors there's not much need to take pitches. But how much patience? I'm not sure.

In the end you see a little patience here, a little power there, but really it's a bunch of Singley Joes. That's not a terrible thing - Ramos could very well hit over .300. Bernadina in the .280s - but it's a tough way to score a lot of runs.

There is some hope for an all around player to develop though. Here is the numbers for Espinosa

Espinosa isoOBP: .095 isoSLG: .185

These are both good numbers and with a little bump in the power numbers - Danny might become a legitimate power threat.

This highlights what the Nats will lose from the lineup if Dunn is let go. His isoOBP in the majors is a fantastic .130, his isoSLG in majors is an even better .271. Even if Dunn isn't hitting, he still usually is getting on base and when he does connect he'll be hitting homers. He's still producing. A lot of the Nats lineup doesn't have those talents and when they go through batting slumps like they are now, they'll be providing next to nothing in terms of run scoring.

One thing on Dunn's fielding...

I'm reading a lot of "well Dunn's actually fielding ok this year..." type of comments to justify signing him for additional years. While technically correct, these are probably misguided.

Just because Dunn is having an average year in the field does not mean he is an average fielder.

The same UZR that has him as -1.9 this year (just barely below average) had him at -14.3 last year (terrible). This isn't that surprising. Current fielding statistics are notoriously variable from year to year. You are meant to look at them across a couple years or so to get a good idea of how well a player fields. Dunn's been pretty terrible at first, in admittedly limited play, since 2005. This agrees with the general opinion of most scouts.

You can take this in one of two ways. Either you can believe that this year is a fluke, the fielding equivalent of a Pudge's .400 start to 2010. In that case you'd expect next year Adam will once again struggle in the field. On the other hand, you can believe this is the end result of an effort to make himself better at a much easier position to hide his faults.

If you believe the former, then the move to a Derek Lee or Carlos Pena makes a good deal of sense. Even if, like me, you don't think it should happen. (If in the end it gets you about the same amount of "wins" - I'd rather have sucky fielding and 40 bombs for 12 million a year, than good/ok fielding and someone hitting .200 or having only 15 homers for something like 5 million. I consider it a 7 million dollar investment in fun. Smart spending to some is cheapness to others).

If you believe the latter, then it's true that it makes no sense to not resign Dunn. He'd be a top 5 first baseman in the NL. However, you have to understand you are taking the bigger gamble. You are betting on Dunn repeating a passable defensive performance something that he hasn't had previously since his rookie year in the OF.

Dunn is done?

So says Tom Boswell, though mainly through conjecture rather than any facts. He feels the Nats are leaning so heavily toward good defense that they'll kick Dunn to the curb next year. In his place would be a short year deal for a good field but aging player, like Derek Lee (could bounce back) or Carlos Pena (power and patience make it worthwhile... if he can hit over .220). If not those guys, then there's always Lyle Overbay right?

Somehow the blame for this goes in part to "stat nerds" and "stat guys", which is funny because these are the same people that have been on Dunn's side for most of his career. They've been the ones telling people that Dunn is one of the best offensive players in the game, that the .250 average doesn't matter when the guy walks 100+ times and hits 40 homers.

It's easy to feel for Adam, because he paints himself very well as someone who only wants to be secure.

Then, he added later: "I'm sick of two-year contracts. It's the same every year [with mid-season trade rumors]. I think I've proved I deserve more than that."

Of course it's not that simple. He doesn't just not want a two year deal. He wants a four year deal on his terms. He wants to play first base and get paid a ton. That's not going to happen. It's not baseball's fault that he signed a 2 year deal (with a club option for a 3rd) so he could stay with the Reds even though he was a premier slugging 25 year old a year from free agency. It's not baseball's fault that right before his next free agent chance he failed to hit over .240 2 out of 3 years and then played terrible defense for a Diamondbacks team that faded from the playoff hunt. (though I think his blame in their fade was exaggerated). It's not baseball's fault that defense is valued to the point now where he's only going to get a 4 year deal if he agrees to be a DH or accepts that his defense knocks down his overall dollar value when compared to other sluggers.

Poor decisions and circumstances led to the last 2 short contracts. He wants to avoid another one, preferably with the Nats. Unlike Boswell, I think he can do it but it will take some compromise from Adam. He can't get everything he wants no matter how many balls he knocks over the fence.

Zimmerman MVP voting thoughts

Zimmerman is arguably the best all-around player in the National League, perhaps in the whole shebang. Now - he won't win the MVP, I think we can all understand that. The MVP is 95% an offensive award for players whose teams are in the pennant race. The Nationals haven't sniffed decency since June and there are stronger purely offensive candidates out there.

(If Joey "not good enough for Charlie Manuel to name to the All-Star team" Votto doesn't run away with the MVP I'd be surprised.)

Ryan will probably take home another Gold Glove, but what I'm really curious about is how will he look in the MVP voting. Will his excellent play two years running garner enough recognition to push him into ... say the Top 10? Will he languish near the bottom like last year (2 votes) behind guys like... Miguel Tejada? Will Adam Dunn, with a slightly more impressive offensive year, actually beat Ryan out?

My guesses are no, kindof, and yes. Top 10 is the realm of HR and RBI leaders, of the best players on the best teams, not for guys like Zimmerman. I see him still near the bottom but higher than last year. He should be bolstered by the increased recognition of another great season and the realization at years end that the Nats have won 5-10 games more than 2009. Voters will look for a reason and some will gravitate to Ryan. Of course some will gravitate toward Dunn and that's the hardest one for me to pick out. If Dunn can pass Pujols in HRs he'll easily outpace Ryan. Dunn will finish somewhere right around 10, Ryan probably near 20.

(Leading the League in home runs is traditionally a rubber stamp to the Top 10 in MVP voting. In fact the home run leader has only finished lower than 6th twice since the strike, both times it was Sammy Sosa finishing 9th. They must have really not liked him. Even fluke year Andres Galarraga for a 3rd place Rockies team finished 6th, which was the next lowest finish.)

If Adam doesn't pass Pujols though I can see Ryan benefitting and both of them finishing around 15th, though I'd still bet on Adam above Ryan.

NatsPLOSION!

Coming into Aug 26th (or 127 games into the season), the Nats had 18 games where they scored 8 runs or more. In the past two weeks (or 11 games) the Nats have 7. Where did this offensive juggernaut come from. Danny Espinosa.

Ok it's not just Danny Espinosa - pretty much everyone not named Nyjer or Kennedy is doing at least ok and several guys are smoking hot. Espinosa is leading the pack hitting (.563 / .563 / 1.313), however and looks great. Desmond is also hot (.400 / .408 / .533) and has had a fantastic 2nd half. Makes one want to go back and re-evaluate their "best-case scenarios". Turning two average bats into two above-average ones would make a huge difference to a lineup. I'm getting ahead of myself here. It's only been two weeks. Hot streaks, even extended ones, can happen for rookies. The Baby Bomber taught me that. Still, it's nice to have something to get excited about so soon after the world ended for Nats fans in a hospital room in LA.

Now if the Nats would only free Wilson Ramos... Sweet!

Best Case Scenario

Rather than focus on the negatives, as I usually do, why don't we spend the long weekend looking at the rosiest picture I can paint for the Nats 2011 team? OK, it's not exactly the rosiest picture. That would be "Nats sign Cliff Lee and everyone becomes a superstar!!!!", but it's a scenario that features reasonable goals for every player. Sure they all have to happen all at once, but that's why it's the rosiest picture and not an accurate one.

Rest of 2010:

Yuneski Maya shows he's capable of pitching in the majors, while pretty much everyone coming back from injury looks healed. Jordan Zimmermann is of particular interest as he mows down the competition and inspires one or two "Strasburg Who"? headlines (which get the writers fired). In the field, both Espinosa and Ramos hit well enough to think they can hang right now in the majors.

Nats Offseason :

Adam Dunn finds the 2011 off season as unhospitable as the 2009 offseason. He resigns with the Nats, agreeing on a 2 year deal for only slightly more money than he signed for last time.

The Tampa Bay Rays take the World Series which allows Carl Crawford to focus on the money and not the winning. The Nats drive the biggest dump truck full of money to his house and manage to sign him.

The Nats resign most of their decent relief pitchers here on one-year deals.

Nats 2011 :

Offense

Willingham returns, shifts to right field, and gives a full season much like the 2010 he put up prior to injury (which includes the downslide... it's still good with that included). Dunn hits like he can and Zimmerman remains a superstar. Crawford has his typical season and the Big 3 become the Big 4.

As for the rest of the lineup, Desmond takes another step foward and hits for a bit more power. Bernadina, playing in center, gives the Nats another average season. Wilson Ramos, first pegged for a part-time gig, hits close to .300 the entire season long and relegates Pudge to back-up duty in May. Danny Espinosa has a season much like Desmond had this year. However, being in the 8th hole, he's able to utilize his patience and get on base at a nice clip.

The Nats are very suddenly an offense with no holes. It's not a league leading offense, because it's batting-average heavy. Outside the Big 3, it's likely only Espinosa will develop notable patience. Desmond, if he takes the next step, might be the only non Big 3 to hit over 20 homers. Still the team hurdles from the bottom of the pack to just outside the good teams, somewhere 5th-8th in the league in scoring.

Pitching

The relief pitching remains stable. Four out of Slaten, Burnett, Walker, Peralta and Clippard remain capable, while Storen holds down the closing gig with no big issues.

In the rotation Zimmermann has a breakthrough year, almost All-Star worthy. Marquis bounces back with an above average season. Maya, Lannan, and a returning to earth Hernandez fill out the rotation with some average pitching. Detwiler fills in capably when one of these guys goes down to injury for a few weeks, but it's in its surprisingly health where the staff gets it's worth.

Much like the offense this is not a world-beating staff, but day in and day out they keep the Nationals in the game. Again we see a rise from the bottom of the NL to a spot above average.

Result

With a bit of luck in one-run games, the Nationals shock the league by staying in the Wild Card hunt until early September. They fade but only back down to a respectable 84 wins. Questions remain about 2012. Josh Willingham was not offered a multi-year deal and will almost certainly leave. Marquis (by his choice) and Lannan (by the team's) are both likely to do the same and leave a big innings hole in the rotation. Livan, signed to another one-year deal, could easily revert to his pre-2010 numbers. Other teams are worried about the Nats, though. Strasburg looks good in rehab and he and Zimmermann will make a scary 1-2. If Ross Detwiler is as capable as he seems they may not miss a beat in the rotation. Ramos, Espinosa, and Desmond all could step up in 2012 and turn a good offense into a dangerous one, and that's not even considering Bryce Harper who looks right on track for a fall 2012 debut, after capably handling A-ball and adjusting late in the year to AA. Some have already made the Nats a trendy pick for the playoffs in 2012.


Is this going to happen? Probably not, but is there anything crazy here (outside of maybe the Crawford signing)? I don't think so. The Nats have spent the last 5 years bouncing from bad luck to maybe average luck and back again. It's about time they spend a year getting more than their share of the breaks.

Acts of Desperation

Nyjer Morgan had a choice. He knew, justified or not, that he was building up a reputation as a "dirty" player. He knew that his next actions in a tricky situation could very well seal the deal on how other teams, and his own, viewed him. Was he a high-spirited fellow who made one bad move (the St. Louis collision) but whose other actions were blown out of proportion? Was he a loose cannon?

Nyjer knew that the Marlins were upset with his catcher take-out in the previous game. He knew they would probably throw at him. He had hours to think of what he would do.

This was what he came up with.

I don't know the man, obviously, but Morgan hadn't struck me as a "bad guy" over the course of a year of baseball. I hadn't heard anything like that when he came over from Pittsburgh either. So why would he act like that? All that I can come up with is:

.257 / .317 /.318

After being declared the Nats centerfielder for life (life = 3 years or so), he's having such a terrible year that he's probably lost the job already. Years of toil in the minors to get to this point and he crashed and burned. The frustration boils up, first at being labeled a bad ballplayer, which he hasn't been, then for being labeled a bad guy, which he hasn't been. Sometime recently one straw too many was placed on his back and this is the result. He is out of control.

Or he could just be an ass. I don't know.

Either way, it's gotten to endgame. Tony Plush's career with the Nationals should end. I know it may seem like I don't believe in Roger Bernadina, but given the circumstances (and age and statistics) I don't see how anyone can be in the Morgan camp anymore. He had a chance, failed, and then blew up spectacularly. You don't wait for that to happen again.


As for Dibble's firing - I like Mike's take over at NatsFanboyLooser. Dibble's problem is that he equates experience with understanding. He played the game to level X and anyone that didn't reach the same level doesn't understand the game as well as he does. Because of this belief he didn't respect anyone's opinion on the game; not reporters, not bloggers, not fans, not umpires, or not even less "credentialed" players. I do believe he was honest when he said he didn't care if you listened to his opinion. But I also believe that he was incredibly offended if you dared think your opinion was better than his.

Of course in the end, none of that did him in. Instead it was an quasi-sexist remarked followed quickly by something that could be interpreted as an insult to the most important National player in their brief history. Neither remarks were terrible, and with more explanation they might have even been understandable, but MASN didn't want to wait to see how Dibble would screw up again.

There's Zimmermann! and Oh no!

"Oh no!" first. Nationals Farm Authority is shutting down. All so he can teach brats that x equals 2! In all seriousness, NFA was a fantastic site and it will be missed. Go say so.

As for ZNN - it looks like I'll probably be wrong about doubting how fast this guy can come back. That's the kind of wrong I can get behind, though. I watched the highlight of the Morgan play and other than the lack of slide, it was less confusing than I thought it would be. Morgan was waved in because the 3rd base coach saw 4-6-3 and figured there was no harm in doing it. Ramirez didn't go to first because of the slowness of the hit and maybe a slight trouble getting the ball out of his glove. Morgan didn't slide because there was noone infront of him telling him to get down (the bench looks suspiciously quiet on the replay) and because he figured the ball would beat him home easily (it did) and only a high but catchable throw would make a slide worthwhile. Of course that's exactly what happened.

Why the Bernadina love?

When talking about the future of the Washington Nationals, there are names always brought up. Zimmerman, Strasburg, and Bryce, of course. Zimmermann and Desmond sure. Espinosa has been a hot new commodity (taking the place of Detwiler or Marrero or Norris as "THE" minor league guy). Recently another name has been brought up over and over again as a key part of the Nationals future, Roger Bernadina. Not that I'm against the guy, but I'm not sure I see where this is coming from. Let's take a look shall we?

Bryce Harper - Age 17 (18 in Oct) - #1 draft pick and one of the most heralded power bat prospects of the past few decades.
Steven Strasburg - Age 22 (23 next June) - #1 draft pick and one of the most heralded arms to come out of the draft in at least a decade
Danny Espinosa - Age 23 (24 in April) - solid middle infield prospect
Jordan Zimmermann - Age 24 (25 in May) - Mid to Top of the rotation starter with great stuff and good control that has translated so far into the majors (9.1 k/9, 2.8 BB/9)
Ian Desmond - Age 24 (25 in Sept) - rookie shortstop prospect who has given the Nats a season of average play in year one.
Ryan Zimmerman - Age 25 (26 in September) - All-Star caliber player in his 5th season.
Roger Bernadina - Age 26 (27 next June) - solid outfileder that has given the Nats 3/4 a seaons of average play in year one.

It's not exactly that Roger Bernadina doesn't belong but he's the oldest AND the least heralded of the bunch. To me he's a throw-in, not a build around. An "oh yeah - that guy too" player not someone you make a point to mention, that is unless you feel the need to pump up your team's prospects.

"But Harper" you say, "he's doing really well recently and when he takes over CF he'll be worth evern more". "But you guys" I say, "prove it". I'm not hitching my wagon to a 26 year old rookie who's fancy stats remind me a lot of Jeff Francoeur (26 - 27 in January).

Franceour - 6.5 BB%, 18.8 K%, 13.3 LD%, 41.2 GB%, 45.5 FB%, 9.9 HR/FB
Bernadina - 6.9 BB%, 22.1 K%, 13.9 LD%, 46.6 GB%, 39.5 FB%, 10.6 HR/FB

Yeah you can note that Bernadina is probably a bit faster and might have a tiny bit more power (though I doubt it) but the big difference between the two this year is this stat :

Franceour - .259 BABIP
Bernadina - .321 BABIP

Maybe it is a product of the speed/more ground balls, I'll give you that. Problem is Bernadina is hitting his peak. By 2012 he won't be as fast, so if he's not turning more flyballs into homers, he's not going to beat out enough ground balls to keep up his usefulness.

Of course maybe I'm wrong, maybe Bernadina will turn some sort of corner and start hitting near .300, or be able to pop out 20-25 homers a year. He'll certainly get next year to try and it'll be right in his peak. If I were a betting man, however, I wouldn't be putting money down on Bernadina starting for the Nats in 2013, or at least playing with the ability that should have him starting.

Pre-emptive strike

Just a quick note today:

I haven't really heard anyone go down this path and I'm very happy about it, but just to make it clear, can we please have NO talk about only bad things happening to the Washington Nationals? That kind of "woe is me", "everthing goes bad for my team/town", "cursed" talk is the most annoying trend in fanbases. Almost every team loses a lot, has injuries, makes poor draft choices, goes through tough losses. These are common place. To act like your team somehow has more of these problems than everyone else is a pitiful cry for attention, a way to prove your team is special in some way. It's sad enough when people feed off the winning - as if the team's accomplishments somehow prove you are accomplished. It's mind boggling when fans do the opposite and seem to feed off the losing. Prove to everyone that the Nats fanbase is new and different and isn't going to give in to the stupidity.

See everyone in 2013

If any Nats fans were thinking about a two-year long vacation... now would be the time. Even if everything goes as well as possible, you're still looking at 2012 as a recovery year for Strasburg so you can't even plan on that being a good year.

Nope, it's 2013 now which throws the whole slow build plan into disarray. There are really only two choices now - the splurge and the tear down. Neither are great plays.

The splurge on free agency, and I mean the going all-out, overpaying in both years and cash to make sure you get them type of splurge, would mean upping the payroll by 40 million or so. It would mean financial commitments to players until 2015 or later and worrying about the back end when that comes around. It would mean a better team next year but only IF they can pull it off and that's a big IF. It would take quite the sell for a team sitting around 100 losses for 83 straight seasons.

The tear down would be trades. It seems obvious now that they should have focused on this during the trade deadline period but that was before the locusts came and the rivers turned to blood. Now they would have to try to do this with their best trading chips ready to walk or injured. They could go the arbitration to draft pick route but you are looking at the 2011 draft meaning guys that won't be around in 2013, or 2014 for that matter. The Nats have little to offer up and that makes the tear down not really likely to succeed for 2013. How do you tell your fans, ones who've been made to wait until now to see any decent progress, ones that you've worked hard to convince that success is right around the corner, how do you tell them now "Oh we're going to try to compete in 2015"?

Things can still work out for the Nats being better next year without big moves. The injured pitching staff depth experiment could easily turn out three average starters next year ( 1 1/2 more than this year) and maybe they could find another one. The relief pitching should hold up. Desmond could make the next step and the Big 3 could become the Big 4 and that would be a huge difference, and if another bat is found - hey it's a real major league offense! But even if the team wins 75 games next year the excitement is gone. There's no electricity. It was up to Strasburg to bridge that interest gap from now until the Nationals were playoff contenders. Without him the front office doesn't just face an uphill battle, it has a 90 degree rock face to climb.

Waiting for Strasburg News...

2011 hangs in the balance.

No seriously - it does. If Strasburg is out for any time in 2011 the Nats future is not next season. It can't be, unless they go out and sign Cliff Lee or something. They could still be ok, certainly better than this year with a couple breaks, but they aren't making that next step to .500 land and beyond without Strasburg at the head of that rotation.

At least the pitching is shaping up...

The Nats are getting into a dangerous area in terms of wins and losses. Once it looked like 70+ wins was in the bag but a terrible August (7-16) has put that goal in extreme jeopardy. If you worry about the Nats getting past the 59 win barrier, don't. That's still going to be beat. They need 7 wins to do that. They have seven wins in August (with a few games left) and they've been as bad as they can be this month. They'll get 7 wins. Worried about 100 losses? The Nats are doing all they can to keep it on the table, but again still probably getting past that. Anything beyond that modest goal will take some extended decent play.

But wins and losses don't matter all that much do they? What matters is the pitching, and with Strasburg likely out for the year (like I said - no reason to bring him back for 2 starts or something), it's imperative that the Nats feel good about a couple other guys in the rotation that they control for next season. Lucky for them a couple of the returning starters are shaping up.

John "Top Chef" Lannan has pitched to a 3.81 ERA in August in 5 starts. His K's (18 in 28.33 innings) aren't going crazy but we shouldn't concern ourselves with that. Let's face it, if they haven't been great by now - they aren't getting much better. His walks though are way down (only 5 in the same time frame) and his HRs are low (3) . As long as he can keep that up, he can keep the Nats in the game and he can keep a rotation spot as far as I'm concerned.

Jason Marquis has finally tossed a couple of decent games - allowing only 2 runs in the past 12+ innings of work. He hasn't been up to form in either game - still walking more guys than he Ks - but the improvement over the last few games has been promising. Since it's almost certain he'll be in the rotation next year, this is very nice to see.

Even more intriguing is the return of Jordan Zimmermann tonight. Unlike Lannan, Marquis, or anyone else in the rotation outside of Strasburg, ZNN has "swing and miss" stuff. Combine that with his age and you can see him maturing into a very nice #2 behind a healthy Strasburg. Of course the key words in that phrase are "you can see him" because despite the praise heaped on ZNN in the rotation guessing game he hasn't done anything yet. Yes, his stats looked very good. 92 Ks to only 29 BBs in 91+ innings and a reasonable 10 HRs. But in tough situations Zimmermann would seemingly collapse. Seven of the 10 homers were hit with men on. I won't bore you all the numbers but his lines in high leverage siutuations, or 2-out RISP situations, or basically most situations with runners on at all look pretty bad. Is it just bad luck or the sign of a pitcher that loses focus? Plus now he's coming back from injury. It seems like he's pitching just as well as before from the minor league stats, but it's limited numbers. We'll see over the next few weeks if he has his stuff back and he's in command of it at all times.

The offense will suffer because it was a three man show to begin with and one man has been effectively out for two months now. The Nats may still lose because of this. As long as their starters are pitching well though, that should make the losses go down a bit easier.

Jesus, Dibble.

So "I played the game" Rob Dibble of course takes the "rub some dirt on it" position on Strasburg. If you read the comments from yesterday you know that I'm not necessarily against Strasburg going out and pitching if he's deemed healthy (though I can totally sympathize with the Nats front office if they want to sit him). However continuing to pitch when you think you might be hurt, that I can't get behind. Of course Dibble is a man, sorry A MAN, who was an inaugural subscriber to STUFF magazine and uses only body wash that comes from dark blue bottles, so of course he thinks Strasburg should just keep playing through the pain.*

Dibble brings up three comparisons to show Strasburg what he should do; Himself, Chris Sabo, and Josh Willingham this year. Let's take it in reverse:

• Josh Willingham presumably got injured... let's just say the 1st of July for arguments sake. By playing through pain he managed to hit .256 with 2 homers possibly hurting the team with his continued presence. Now he's out for the year and hopefully will be ready for next season.
• The only mention I could find of Chris Sabo missing significant time due to injury was in 1992 (though I guess it could have been 1989). Sabo, who was a great player in 1991, would go on to be very average in injury shortened 1992, 1993, and 1994. He would be out of baseball in 1996, though presumably this was at least partially due to aging out (he was 29 when he was injured). Still, the lack of average and power immediately post injury is noticeable and I think his exit was a bit premature for someone that rocked in 1991.
• Dibble's steel plate injury took place in early 1993 (he didn't pitch from April 21st to May 30th). Prior to this injury he was one of the most dominating relief pitchers in baseball. In '93, Dibs would go on to have by far the worst season of his career (6.31 ERA after surgery). He would miss the entire next year with a new injury to his rotator cuff and he would be out of baseball after 1995 at the age of 31.

Maybe Dibble was being sarcastic.

*I thought about this some more and here's the thing : Dibble is arguing that Strasburg should understand that pain is part of the game and that as long as he's not hurt he should go out there and pitch. The second part of that argument is exactly right and I don't think many people disagree with Rob on that. I was surprised that the comments I got yesterday basically fell in that line instead of the Boswellian "Put Strasburg in a bubble and start praying" philosophy. It's the first part of the argument that causes concern because how does a player know exactly what is a pain you can work through and what is pain that signifies a greater injury? It's only through trial and error that you find those things out - but "error" in the wrong direction could have catastrophic consequences. You don't want someone playing through a real injury and making it worse. You want them to be cautious. Especially pitchers. Especially young players. Super-duper especially young superstar pitchers.

If he finds out that there is no issue with his arm after that fancy arthrogram thing, then Strasburg knows that the pain he felt is something he might have to work through in the future. He learns. No harm done.

Rating the Offseason Deals : Decision and Outcomes Part 2

A little clarification, a "C" isn't a C as in "fair". It's more as in "exactly how things should be done". A straight C would be a deal that was market value for someone with some impact on the major league team. An offseason with nothing but C deals would be perfectly fine. (though boring and not very impactful)

Tyler Walker (1 years - 650K)
Decision : C+ : Tyler didn't have a great ERA and was a bit injury prone but for the past 4 years he's had good peripheral stats. Odds were in favor of a decent half-season from this guy.
Result : B- : And a decent half-season was what they got. He's a non-critical reliever so like Peralta there's only so much "goodness" to come from the deal. But trust me - for a reliever a B- is great in my mind.

Miguel Batista (minor league deal)
Decision : C : It's really hard for me to argue for lower than a C for a minor league deal. Was Batista old and not very good? Sure. But if he didn't work out - whatever.
Results : C : No big win here but he did make the team and stick with them. He's been ok and that one spot start worked out didn't it?

Adam Kennedy (1 yr - 2.25 million - well that's what they are going to pay + buyout)
Decision : C+ : It was a secondary deal when the Nats couldn't bring themselves to spend money on the surer bet - Orlando Hudson. As a last resort, Kennedy was worth a one year toss-off deal based on a very decent 2009, even though it was likely a fluke.
Results : D (but rising) : As a part-timer he couldn't generate enough offense to challenge Guzman. He's gotten better with more playing time but it's not enough to change the fact he's been a disappointment.

Willy Taveras (Minor League Contract)
Decision : D- : Remember when I said that I had a hard time giving out a bad grade to a minor league deal? The exception is when a guy is proven not to be major league caliber and is past the age of being worthy of taking a shot on, so really he's just taking up at bats from someone who might be worth something to the team. That last sentence might as well be Willy Taveras' nickname.
Results : F : Worth less than Bruney, even got caught stealing 2 out of 3 times. (Did you know he's been signed 3 times after the Nats let him go? Really what did the Rangers think they knew that the Nats... and Phillies... and Braves didn't?)

Chien-Ming Wang (1yr - 2 million)
Decision : B- : Here's one that could have totally worked out. Yes Wang was injured and coming off some terrible pitching, but the Nats were trying (in theory anyway) to build up a good defense that would work well with a ground ball pitcher. Plus I always like guys moving from the AL to the NL.
Results : C- : This is a temporary grade based on the slowness of his recovery. Really, it'll come down to how well he pitches the next few weeks and whether the Nats see enough to offer him arbitration.

Livan Hernandez (minor league deal)
Decision : B- : Sure it was a minor league deal, but unlike a Batista or Perlata the ceiling with Livan was greater: 4th or 5th starter giving you 200+ innings of average ball for no cost. Would have been higher if Livan didn't stink the past few years. Then again that's the reason he only could get a minor league deal.
Results : A : Has alot of it been luck? Maybe. But he's had one of the 15 best 2010 of a NL starter so far. I'm not sure he'll keep it up but even a crash drops it down to what? A B+?

In the end I think free agency worked out for the Nats. The front office didn't make a bunch of smart moves, but it didn't make a bunch of terrible ones either. It got one high profile failure, but the other poor results didn't end up mattering at all. On the flip side two of the moves turned into pure gold. All in all I'd say it was a rather typical mlb offseason, and for a team dying to be average I guess that's a good thing.

The easy tough decision

Steven Strasburg in injured again and the Nats front office has a decision to make. Or does it? In a completely logical world they wouldn't. If Strasburg is deemed healthy post-MRI, he would pitch. End of story. That's what healthy pitchers do.

However, this isn't a logical world and the guys in charge know they will be slow-roasted over chunks of hickory wood if Strasburg goes out to pitch again this year and injures himself for the third time. Whether he can pitch or not is irrelevant. This is the most important piece of the Nats' future. You treat him differently. This is a lost year. It doesn't matter if he pitches now or not. The team thought he was fine twice before and twice before he's tweaked himself. Why wait for that 3rd time?

Are these valid arguments? Yes, Strasburg is a huge piece of the Nats future but he's going to have to pitch through pain sooner or later. At some point you do have to treat him like everyone else so I don't like starting out with different rules for him. I think it sets a bad precedent. Now, if you combine "most important Nat" with "completely unimportant games" the argument for shutting down does get pretty enticing. But again, I feel like it would be the sign of an extreme bunker mentality to try to put Strasburg back in his original wrapping if he was deemed healthy enough to go. If he can pitch, he should.

However, I can see the Nats feeling like their doctors have not answered the question of "can he pitch?" with enough conviction to send him back out there. Or in other words - I can see the Nats not trusting the team doctors. There has been several injury situations with the Nats where things seemingly got much worse in the face of the doctor's diagnosis. Let's not forget that Jesus Flores was originally scheduled to be back from injury and playing full time in mid May... of 2009. So, I can see a situation where Strasburg gets the green light from the docs but the front office holds him back anyway, leery based on the mixed results of such "OK"s in the past. That would be fine. Of course then they would have to fire the entire medical staff, because if you don't trust their opinions then they shouldn't be working for you.

The easiest thing for the Nats would be if there is something slightly wrong with Strasburg. Mild inflammation or something where he'd have to miss a few starts and they can say there's no real point to rehab him on a normal schedule just so he can pitch 2 or 3 more times. I think everyone would agree a conservative rehab would be best. However, if he is ready to go right now the Nats face a decision. It's not a difficult one. Fans, media members, and most importantly the fate of their jobs, all say shut Strasburg down. Only cold robot logic and possibly Jim Bunning say keep pitching him. That's not much of a choice at all.

Rating the Offseason Deals : Decision and Outcomes Part 1

Coming from Monday's post about bad outcomes coming from good decisions, why don't we look at the offseason moves of the Nats and see where they fit. I'll use letter grades to tell you what I think of the decision made and the result. Why? I don't know. Let's go with "The Nats Front Office goes Back to School." That seems trite enough, no?

Pudge Rodriguez (2 years - 6 million)
Decision : D- : I've gone over several times why this was too long and for too much money. Yes, it's not a lot of money and yes the Nats needed a catcher, but if I go into a mini-mart and throw down $5 for a Snickers when it cost $1, just because it's only $5 and I really really was hungry doesn't mean I wasn't a dumbass.
Result : D+ : The early super hot start and Flores' failure to come back bump it up a couple notches from the D- it would have been. He still can't hit, our pitchers aren't much better anymore (no surprise), and that veteran presence that led the Nats to all those wins has somehow disappeared! But at least he's still pegging them on the basepaths, right? He's got a whole 'nother year though so it's a more fluid grade and I guess it could go up... Ha!

Brian Bruney (1 yr - 1.5 million)
Decision : C- : Part of the Nats' bullpen arm race, Bruney is one of those "if only he could control his stuff" kind of guys. He's also 28, past the time when you give players the benefit of the doubt.
Results : F : Worthless.

Scott Olsen (1 yr - 1 million)
Decision : a gentleman's C : Nats didn't want to let him walk and obviously felt he still had some value. I'll agree. 1 million for another look at a 26 yr old lefty starter who's shown some flashes of talent is worth it.
Results : D : Injured again, spotty again. Very little time left to prove anything with all these other arms. Exactly what the Nats didn't want to have happen. Honestly I think him bombing out in 12 healthy starts would have been better.

Joel Peralta (Minor League Contract)
Decision : C : Old and terrible last year. But still it's a minor league deal and he was ok before 2009.
Results : B- : Has been as useful as the 3rd or 4th guy out of the pen could be but took a while to get back into the majors.

Jason Marquis (2yrs - 15 million)
Decision : B : We've discussed. I liked it better than others.
Results : F : Really what else, right? A strong finish and great 2011 could save this grade though.

Matt Capps (1 yr - 3.5 million)
Decision : C : I can't decide if it was dumb at the time (overpaying for a "closer" with a 5.80 ERA) or crafty (seeing the off-year from a guy who before was a very good reliever for what it was)
Results : A : All-Star or not, he was effective in the pen and he brought back a legit catcher prospect in a deal. That my friend is a good result.

"Where's Zimmermann?" and "The Diminishing Strasburg Effect Revisited"

Where's Zimmermann?

Seriously, where is ZNN because I need something to care about. Perhaps the Joe Q Natsfan (I guess a man cannot escape his destiny) is out there is hanging on every pitch, but this feels like slow death, doesn't it?

Usually at this time of year we could count on the Nats (and their star player "Reggie Tothemean") making some strides and playing some good baseball. They were 14-15 for August in both 2008 and 2009. This year the Nats offense is crashing (.232 / .285 / .411 line in August). The pitching is pretty bad (4.59 ERA, 5.21 from starters this month). Scratch that.

Another item of interest could be front office intrigue. Except for the Nats, there is no front office intrigue. Everyone will be back next year. End of story. I guess the Dunn contract deal is of interest but that's not something you check on daily.

What about satiating your baseball craving on young players being brought up or getting their first real extended try out? Nope. We've been watching Desmond play all year. He's having a nice August so far, .340/ .386 / .528, but I think he'd have to keep up this level of play into September for fans to really get excited about him again. Bernadina has also been playing a ton for a while now and frankly has been proving he shouldn't be. Plus he's not young. So unless the Nats start playing Justin Maxwell all the time (just for fun - because he hasn't proven himself any better than Bernadina) or for some reason bring up Danny Espinoza and make him a starter, there isn't anything fresh or new here.

All the Nats have in terms of on-field intrigue is pitchers coming back from injury. Marquis is back and has looked terrible. Olsen is back and has had mixed results. That's sort of interesting but we know what the best case scenario is for Marquis (average) and have no real faith in Olsen. The interest is in the young guys, Detwiler and especially Zimmermann, who many fans expect to immediately bounce back into #2 form. I don't necessarily agree but I think we're all interested to see how he looks. The Nats are eyeing a return for him in the next two weeks or so. He can't come back soon enough.

The Diminishing Strasburg Effect Revisited

I'm right. You're (possibly) wrong. (depends what you thought before)

I went to a Strasburg game last Tuesday (of course I get his worst game EVA) and thought - "Hey, it seems kind of empty". It was. 26K showed up. Significantly better than a non-Strasburg weekday night game? Sure. Probably 10K more at least but not a sell-out. Perhaps though there was trepidation about him actually pitching, given his last second bailout the last time he was scheduled to start. Surely his next start - a Sunday game getting toward the tail-end of school's out season - would be better.

21, 695

That's actually the lowest Sunday game turnout since May 9th. I don't live in DC so maybe someone can come up with an explanation but for now it looks like they are running out of the casual fans just going to the park to see Strasburg pitch.

See you in September (2013 probably)

Bryce signs.

This signing period didn't have the same urgency as last year's to me, which is good. I think last year I could imagine a scenario where the team didn't sign Strasburg. They hadn't committed a ton of money to anything. They let Aaron Crow walk after a bungled negotiation. Watching Strasburg slip through their fingers felt like a distinct possibility. Not so with Bryce. The Nats ponied up some cash in free agency. They paid out a ton of bonuses last year including a record deal for Strasburg. Bryce was going to sign. It was just a question of how much. (about 10 mill)

As for the signing himself, there's more question marks around Bryce than Strasburg, which also lends to the muted feel. Strasburg was the best pitcher drafted at least since Mark Prior. At 22 he was fully mature and every scout said he was destined to get to the majors as soon as the Nats felt like putting him there. Bryce is the best pure power prospect the draft has seen in a while, but he is not fully mature (in body and spirit) and they expect to see him play 2-3 years of minor league ball before possibly coming up. Without the quick (in baseball terms) payoff, there's less juice to the whole thing.

How Bryce will do? I got no idea, and nobody else does either (though other people's guesses are better than mine). The track record for #1 hitter draft picks is very good, but at the same time there's a bit more drama surrounding this kid than you would like. Up to now he's set himself up to look as good as he can, getting into close-by, low-level college ball with his brother and and dominating. That's better than dominating high school ball for sure, but he didn't face the talent of Division I ball and that's not even the talent he'll face in A ball. It'll be fascinating to see if he'll struggle with the big jump and if he does, how he'll react, without the support from family and the relatively familiar surroundings of Nevada. History tells us he'll make some impact in the majors but the Nats need him to be more than just Phil Nevin. We'll see.

When good decisions go bad

For logical people, sports can sometimes be infuriating to watch. That's because good decisions and bad decisions do not necessarily produce good and bad results respectively, and sports is all about results.

If with two outs in the 9th the Nats could pinch hit a sitting Ryan Zimmerman or Livan Hernandez the right decision would be to pinch hit Zimmerman. But let's say Riggles has a feeling and he pinch hits Livan, who just the day before injured his knee, and he has to bat left handed today because of a religious holiday, and he's suffering from a Dippin-Dots induced ice cream headache. It's a terrible decision to bat Livan. Now let's say Livan gets a base hit and the Nats win. You'd find a lot of people you would argue that Riggleman made the right decision. In no way did he do that, but the results shaped the decision for these fans. The thought process behind the decision doesn't matter, neither does the odds of success created by it, only the actual outcome. Decisions are not divorced from results, as they probably should be, but inexorably tied to them.

This is certainly true in the course of an individual game, but it can even be the case over several seasons. Which brings me roundaboutly to the point of this - Jason Marquis. The Nationals needed a pitcher to stabalize the rotation. After John Lackey the pickings were rather slim. Two pitchers stood out as relatively young, relatively healthy and available. Jon Garland and Jason Marquis. Over the past 3 years their numbers were scarily similar:

Garland : age 29, 97 GS, 4.37 ERA, 104 ERA+, 1.409 WHIP, 61 HR,
Marquis : age 30, 94 GS, 4.37 ERA, 105 ERA+, 1.403, 52 HR

There was some talk that the Nats actually preferred Garland but he preferred the West Coast, so the Nats turned to Marquis and signed him to a deal. 2 years, fifteen million. It made sense. Recently Randy Wolf, maybe slightly better, certainly older, signed a 3 year 30 million dollar deal. Injury risks Carl Pavano and Brad Penny signed one year 7 million and 7.5 million dollar deals respectively. The supply was diminishing so the Nats jumped on the chance to sign someone reliable at what seemed like a market value deal. The Joel Piniero signing would only confirm that (2 years - 16 million). It was a good deal at the time. But then the market didn't go up for the remaining pitchers. It crashed. Doug Davis and Jon Garland were both forced to go cheaper than people thought they would (perhaps they forced their own hands a litte). Garland 5.3 million (well really 4.7 for 2010 but he has to make at least 5.3 total) with a mutual option for 2011. Davis 4.25 with a mutual option for 2011. The Nats didn't necessarily overpay but if they waited - they might have been able to work out a more favorable deal.

Still the Nats had their man and they had their 200 IP of average baseball that would save thier bullpen. But it didn't come from Marquis. Marquis was damaged goods and immediately pitched horribly. After three starts it was the DL for him. He had surgery, came back, and... has pitched only slightly less horribly. 5 horrible games so far for around 6 million. No the good pitching came from a guy who's line the last three years was this:

95 GS, 5.43 ERA, 81 ERA+, 1.607 WHIP, 78 HR

A guy signed at last second to help fill a hole when Ross Detwiler went down to injury. A 34 year old who was begging for work just a few months earlier, who agreed to a minor league deal. Of course you know it was Livan the Nats signed, who at 35 just might be having his best season EVER.

Some fans will now look at the Marquis signing and say that it was a bad decision. They'll look at the horrible results for Jason Marquis and how cheaply they got good results from Livan and say "SEE! BAD DECISION" But it wasn't a bad decision. At it's worst it was a completely defensible blah decision. A inning eater average pitcher for market value for 2 years. That's fine. Some may say it was a good decision and I wouldn't argue with them.

It's a shame that Marquis deal has been a total bust so far, but don't let that cloud the facts that the decision was based on at the time. Sometimes good decisions produce bad results.

Welcome back you sabermetrician infuriating son of a gun

Of course John Lannan isn't pitching bad anymore, that's really the key. (5.0 K per 9, 2.0 BB per 9 in the three games since coming back) Wouldn't it be great if he coud somehow get his ERA back under 4.00 before the season's end? While striking out 7 or maybe 8 guys total? That'd be sweet. Of course it would take a 2.00 ERA for the rest of the year but hey, a boy can dream, right?

It can work with or without Dunn

It can. Now that "Waiver 2 : Waive Harder" is over and Dunn is still with the team the options have become even more limited for the Nats. They HAVE to either resign him or offer him arbitration, or else he walks for nothing. You don't want nothing. Anything is better than nothing. I don't know much about math (not true at all) but

Daniel Hudson >>>>>> nothing

so it HAS to be a resign or an arbitration offer. That's the only "have to" though. Dunn doesn't "have to" be here for the Nats to continue with what seemed like their plan - trying to compete in the next couple of years. That's the only conclusion one can come to when they are trying to get a player like Gordon Beckham back for Dunn. That's not about 2013. It's about 2011 and 2012. Is it the best plan? Probably not. Is an arguable course of action given the current state of contract on the team and the still questionable health of the minor leagues? Probably so.

If the Nats resign Dunn, or he stays though arbitration trying to compete in 2011 and 2012 is a bit more possible. If he walks the Nats still have the opportunity to try to compete by going whole hog after free agents like Crawford, Lee, etc. Does it make it incredibly hard for one to see the Nats competing? Oh god yes. How are they going to then get the (at least) three stars they need? But it doesn't necessitate a change in direction.

If he walks and they don't sign anyone, either by their choice or by market choice, then that would necessitate a change in strategy to look more toward 3 or 4 years down the road. That would make this trading period a huge opportunity loss and Rizzo look incredibly foolish after setting himself up nicely with a couple crafty deals. Which is why I expect Dunn to resign. Will the possibility of failure though drive Rizzo to make a bad deal for Dunn?

Paces

The Nats have played pretty well recently (9-9 in their last 18) bringing their record up to 49-63 which puts them on pace for 71 wins for the season. That's not a great goal but it is in the general range of the 73 wins I predicted for the team, and I like to be right. Just for kicks, and because it makes for a real easy and short post, how well do the Nats have to play to win 73 games or hit some other win milestones?

(For reference the Nats best 50 game stretch this year was 26-24 at the very beginning of the year, their worst stretch was 17-33 which pretty much covered all of June and July)

60 wins (beating the last 2 years): 11-39 or a 36 season win pace. In other words - it'll happen.

63 wins (avoiding 100 losses): 14-36 or a 45 win pace. Again very likely, though over the course of 50 games it could fail to happen.

70 wins : 21-29 or a 68 win pace. Pretty much on par with what we'd expect.

73 wins (proving me right) : 24-26 or a 78 win pace. We're getting pretty close to the best the Nats have done this season, but I certainly think it's doable.

74 wins (best record since 2005) : 25-25 or an 81 win pace. Better chance than something like 63 wins, but we're beginning to hit the limit of what this team is capable of.

81 wins : 32-18 or an 103 win pace. I'd bet on 63 wins before I'd bet on this.

I'd say the modest goal of 74 wins is the one to shoot for. Is it possible? I think so. The Nats' schedule breaks favorably from here on out. Sure they have to play the Braves and Phillies for 3 more series each, but they also get the Marlins and the Mets for 5 more combined. More importantly their non-division games are as easy as can be. Other than St. Louis they play the worst team in the NL (Pirates), the 2nd worst (Diamondbacks), the 3rd worst (Cubs), and the 4th worst (Astros). These are all teams that the Nationals currently have a better record than. We all know what happened before when the Nats had an easy schedule lined up but just because they choked once doesn't mean they will again. The odds favor a strongish finish for the Nats and if it's strong enough this could be the best season record wise the Nats have had in 5 years.

The Meta-Rotation

Looking at the rotations suggested below, if we all were to combine into one Uni-Mind like the Eternals (what? read a (comic) book!) our best guess on the Nationals rotation next year would be:

Strasburg
Zimmermann
Marquis
Maya
Detwiler


Strasburg and Zimmermann were named in all, while Marquis was named in all but one. Zimmermann also beats Marquis on expected rotation position. I'm personally surprised that people think that a guy with 16 games of major league experience and a 4.63 ERA who hasn't pitched since mid-July of last year will be the Nats #2 pitcher come Opening Day, but hey I've been wrong before. Maya was, to my shock, named in all but one as well.

It makes sense that I was shocked since I was the one that didn't have him in the rotation. The guy hasn't pitched game 1 in the majors, but Nats fans are thinking he's going to be in the rotation for sure. I guess it does make a measure of sense. He's older (29) and is one of the few not getting over injury. I guess unless he tanks this fall he's a very good shot to be a starter come next St. Patrick's Day or whenever they are going to open the season. (I just believe the chance of him tanking is not slight)

As for Detwiler, everyone else was put in 2 rotations, Detwiler though happened to get placed in higher positions than the other guys. What this highlights is, assuming Zimmermann and Marquis are healthy and Maya doesn't tank, how wide open that 5th spot is going to be for possibly 5 (or more) other pitchers. Surely they can find a decent one out of the that bunch, right?

The Greatness of Mariano Rivera

Not anything Nationals related but with Mariano Rivera's hitless/walkless 9th inning today he drops his career WHIP under 1.

1129 hits and walks, 1129 and 2/3rds innings pitched.

How many Wilson Ramoseses would that be worth?

Guess Next Year's Opening Day Rotation

What the hell, right? Best to do this now before we see who's good and bad, and who is healthy and not healthy. It makes a better game. Popular choices include (in alphabetical order)

Detwiler, Lannan, Livan, Marquis, Maya, Olsen, Strasburg, Zimmermann, Wang

But go ahead and put Stammen in there if you want to. Free Agent "X" is fine too.

My guess?

Strasburg
Marquis
Zimmerman Zimmermann
Detwiler
Lannan

The strange case of Livan Hernandez

I'm not sure I fully got how good a year Livan was having until yesterday. Early on, sure he was doing fantastic, carrying an ERA just over 1.00 after 6 starts. That was the product of some crazy luck though, with a crazy low BABIP (.181) that got past ridiculous and into mouth agape, "that just can't be" range when it came to hitting with men on base. We figured it would come to an end and it did.

But it came slower than we thought. He didn't blow up in his next 6 games, in fact he wound up pitching better, statistically at least. His BB:K went from a poor 14:14 in the first 6 games to a decent 11:19 and he actually gave up one less HR. Even though the hits were starting to go through (.313 BABIP) he still put up a 3.79 ERA of innings filling goodness, better than any ERA he had for a season since 2004.

Over games #13-#18, we finally thought we had the "real" Livan back. The guy mixed a couple of gems in with a couple terrible outings, reminding us of the sporadic pitching we associate with Livan (well at least I do in my head). Thing is these 6 games were like the Bizarro version of his first 6. As much as he was a pretty bad pitcher getting all the breaks then, now he was a pretty good one getting none of them. He continued to improve. He had 11 walks matched up with 26 strikeouts, only gave up 2 home runs and more impressively only 5 other XBH. His BABIP though went way up to .357 and it seems likely that his BABIP with RISP went higher than that (though maybe not - that's a time intensive check people - cut me some slack). He was only giving up singles but they came more often than they should and in bunches. His improvement was lost on me.

Now though things have evened out again. His last 4 games have been stellar (2.07 ERA) and his pitching has remained top notch. Only 5 walks to 19 strikeouts, no home runs and only 3 doubles, a BABIP at .268 that's low but not unsustainable. Sure his numbers for the season still look lucky (ERA 3.12 to an xFIP 4.58) that's mostly the remains of that incredibly lucky start. Since then his ERA and xFIP look to be more in line. He's pulling out his best K/BB rate since 2004 and his best full season HR rate ever.

Livan, a guy who had to beg for a job in the Spring, has slowly and steadily improved along the season into a solid top of the rotation pitcher. It's been a bit hard to see as luck has bounced all around him but it's true. He's no longer the "luckiest man alive". He's a good pitcher again for the first time in years.

Nats are "losers" but not because they didn't trade Dunn

If the Nats are mentioned in trade deadline stories, it's almost certain it'll be done negatively.

SI calls the Nats "losers"

CBS Sportline gives the Nats an "F"

And here's a "push" from Yahoo.

It's not because these guys are dumb (in fact Pasaan's basing his push off of Dunn walking with no arbitration - an admittedly awful scenario that would negate the good that's been done. Though I think it's disingenuous to base a grade off of work not yet done. Perhaps his schooling was different than mine) It's because sports analysts are simple creatures all reading from the same script. If you are not currently contending, or not "on the verge" then you should be a "seller". You should trade everyone that isn't young and nailed down and hope to get better in the future. Where in the future? They don't know, but they are sure that if you just trade that one guy success will follow. Of course this ignores the gaggle of teams yearly that do this and don't succeed 3-5 years down the road but why mess with an easy storyline?

So the Nats HAD to trade Dunn because they aren't good and aren't likely to be contending next year. It's a valid argument, but as we've discussed ad infinitum previously - it ignores the Nats wish to engage the fanbase NOW and their need to have a good team guaranteed by 2013 lest Zimmerman walk and the whole rebuilding process starts over. The Nats made two smart moves and will be able to build on that. That's not a losing trade deadline.

But build on that to what? .500? An outside chance at the Wild Card if EVERYTHING goes right? Because that's what we're looking at here. The Nats are "losers" but not because of what happened in the past week or so. Instead it was a long process that started years ago. One that placed the Nats where they are now, a terrible position for a trade deadline, with a couple of young studs who cry out for a win "soon" strategy, but little obvious old talent to deal for immediate help, and little obvious young talent to count on in the 3-5 year range.

Dunn could have been dealt for a major league ready guy but the market was only offering one of them back and neither Edwin Jackson or Daniel Hudson was likely to be the difference between the playoffs or not in 2011-2, especially on a team without Dunn's bat. He might have been dealt for some deeper prospects with eyes on 2013, but then you are asking for some terrible teams in the meantime, and 2013 only going from "total crapshoot" to "mostly crapshoot".

The Nats were caught in a no-win situation and tried to make it a win. Didn't work. In the meantime they made a couple of nice deals. That's not loser work though it is the work of a loser.

How do the Nats now shed that "loser" status? It starts first by signing Dunn. They have to get him back and yet they can't be giving him a 4 yr deal, and better get a bargain on 3 years. I'd be fine with them overpaying for a 2-yr deal. After that it's offseason signings and trades. They need a 2nd baseman, an outfielder, and another starter if they really want to win in 2011. The pickings are not great. It'll be tough goings making a good chance playoff team from that. I guess they could sign Hudson, then drive a dump truck of money over to Carl Crawford's house, then say to Cliff Lee - "Hey look! We signed Hudson and Crawford, you want to get overpaid to join this party?" Yeah, if only the team commits to a 100+ million dollar payroll and signs probably the two biggest free agents of the offseason beating out the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. then they have a good chance. It'll be an interesting offseason to say the least.